THECIS logo Integrity, Indepencence, Quality

THECIS Governance Structure

Incorporated: June 15th 2001 under section 9 of the Alberta Companies Act [Not for profit section] as a company limited by guarantee.

Members

The Members play a role analogous to shareholders in a for profit company. They represent the broadest constituency for THECIS activities.  The Articles of Association limit the number of members to 50. An Annual general meeting must be held at least every 16 months; a quorum is 50% of the members.  Members are appointed by a simple majority vote of the members.  The major responsibility of the members is: to elect Directors; to appoint auditors; to fix remuneration of auditors.

 

Board of Directors

The Directors provide governance to the organization, represent THECIS to the community and accept the ultimate legal authority and fiduciary responsibility for THEICS. Directors serve a one year term that may be renewed.  The Articles state there should be 3 – 20 Directors.  The composition of the Board is determined by the Articles of Association so as to ensure participation from business, government and university.  The Chair must be from industry.

 

Executive Director

the position has primary leadership responsibility for establishing THECIS  as a significant player in Alberta and western Canada as it evolves from a volunteer to a professional organization.

THECIS Associates

THECIS Associates carry out the work of THECIS.  They include: THECIS Fellows; Executive Secretary, comptroller; Conference Planner; Accountant, Newsletter/Blog Editor; etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


THECIS logo Integrity, Indepencence, Quality

Backgrounder on THECIS

THECIS (The Centre for Innovation Studies) is a province-wide not for profit organization devoted to study and promotion of innovation.  Based in Calgary, Alberta, and Incorporated in 2001, its primary geographic scope is western Canada.
THECIS has three core functions – research, networking and education.
  • Research. Creating new knowledge and building insights into how the innovation systems functions and policies that can improve it.
  • Networking.  Providing opportunities for exchange of ideas through breakfast meetings, workshops and conferences.
  • Education.  Dissemination of information through Blogs/Newsletters, events and other informal education activities, particularly for graduate students.

Funding.  THECIS is funded on a project basis by a variety of organizations.  since 2001, nearly 50 organizations have provided financial support to THECIS.

THECIS is governed by a Board of Directors from across Alberta, with extensive experience and knowledge relating to innovation.

Executive leadership is provided by an Executive Director, and projects are carried out for clients by a network of experienced individuals called THECIS Fellows.  The THECIS Fellows represent a major asset and a major source of competitive advantage for THECIS.

The Core Values of THECIS are integrity, independence and quality.

 


Report cover for GEM Canada 2016

GEM Canada 2016 report summary

25, June, 2017 – BLOG #9

GEM Canada Report 2016

GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) is the largest study of entrepreneurship in the world.  THECIS manages the GEM project in Canada.  The latest GEM report for Canada has just been issued.  It is available at http://thecis.ca/index.php/gem-2016/       It shows that there is a very strong entrepreneurship culture in Canada, and the rate of early stage entrepreneurship (TEA -Total Early stage Activity) is the highest in the developed world.  GEM data is widely used as evidence for evidence based policy by such groups as the UN, OECD, World Bank and World Economic Forum.

Some of the highlights from the report are:

  • Almost 60% of the adult population see good opportunities to start a business in the next six months;
  • Over 50% also have confidence in their skills and knowledge to start a business;
  • No more than 44% are inhibited by fear of failure.
  • 7% of the adult population is involved in early stage entrepreneurship, the highest rate in the developed world, ahead of Australia and the US.
  • 8% of the adult population in Canada is involved in an established business (one more than 42 months old), a lower rate than in Australia or the US.
  • In terms of intrapreneurship (entrepreneurship in large organizations) Canada’s rate is 6.5%, that ranks us 12th among developed countries.
  • A significant number of startups have major growth plans. Twenty percent expect to create 20 or more jobs within five years.
  • In common with most other developed countries, the largest sector for entrepreneurship (48%) is consumer services, closely followed by business services.
  • A significant minority of startups export. 20% of them project from 25% to 75% of revenue from export, and 13% anticipate more than 75% of revenue from export.
  • A significant minority of startups offer innovative products or services (9%-14% depending upon the questions asked.
  • 17% of startups use technology available only in the least year, an indicator of innovativeness.
  • The age group with the highest TEA was the 25 – 34 age group, at 22.3%.
  • The rates decline sequentially for the 35 – 44 group, the 45 – 54 group, and the 55 – 64 age group. The TEA rates decline reaches 10.7% among the 55 – 64 cohort.
  • Approximately 50% of total startup activity is in the 18-40 age group.
  • The rate of women’s entrepreneurship is about two-thirds the male rate, which is comparable to other comparison countries.
  • The rate of entrepreneurship increase steadily with education, being highest among those with some post graduate experience.
  • The rate of entrepreneurship increases across Canada from east to central Canada, and is similar across the west.
  • The strongest aspect of the Canadian ecosystem is physical infrastructure, commercial infrastructure, and the relevant social and cultural norms.
  • The weakest aspects are the lack of education for entrepreneurship at primary and secondary levels, and availability of finance.

The report made the following recommendations:

  1. Provide more targeted assistance to young and growing firms.
  2. Provide more education and mentoring to potential women entrepreneurs.
  3. Expand entrepreneurship training in entrepreneurship in post-secondary institutions.
  4. Provide targeted resources for senior entrepreneurs.
  5. Support entrepreneurs who want to export.
  6. Encourage firms to develop strategy utilizing more intrapreneurship.

Peter Josty

p.josty@thecis.ca
403-249-0191
www.thecis.ca

 

 


How to get more innovation?

12 June, 2017 – Blog #8

How to get more innovation?

In an earlier blog, I asked if we had too much innovation or not enough.  The answer was that some areas had too much and some too little.  Which raises the question what can be done to increase innovation.  In fact, there are quite a number of proven approaches to increasing innovation.  Here is a short list:

  1. Competition. This is one of the effective ways of getting innovation as it uses the ingenuity of large numbers of people who want to make a profit. The economist Willian J. Baumol captures this well in the title of one of his books – “The free market Innovation Machine.”  Baumol goes on to explain that “the prime weapon of competition is not price but innovation.  As a result, firms cannot afford to leave innovation to chance.  Rather, managements are forced by market pressures to support innovative activities systematically and substantially…  The end result is a ferocious arms race among firms in the most rapidly evolving sectors of the economy.”
  2. Prizes. Cash prizes have a long history of stimulating innovation. One of the earliest examples is the Longitude prize, offered by the British government in 1714 to anyone who could determine longitude accurately.  That prize was eventually won by John Harrison, for an accurate clock.  The XPrize is a more recent example, which was set up to bring about “radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity”.  The XPrize has stimulated numerous other prizes, including one in Alberta run by the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC) to find commercially viable applications for waste gas.
  3. Military spending. This is a very wasteful way of generating innovations, but it can produce very significant results.  Mariana Mazzucato has shown that many of the technologies in the iPhone were originally developed and used by the US military before being “re-purposed” and incorporated into the iPhone.  The internet is another example, which was originally funded by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) in the US.
  4. Government funded megaprojects. There are a few examples of megaprojects that have developed significant innovations. One is the man on the moon project in the 1960’s.  This was a political, not scientific project that occurred at the height of the cold war.  NASA considers Landsat satellite imagery to be a direct result of this megaproject.  However this is a very wasteful way of getting innovations.  Another example might be the Chinese government’s initiative – the Belt and Road project – to spend significant resources to enhance trade across Eurasia.

Because of the magnitude of resources required, this will always be a very minor contribution to overall innovation.

  1. Surprisingly, regulation can sometimes stimulate innovation.  A classic example is the role of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which imposed stringent fuel economy standards for all automobiles sold in California, in 1967.  This led automakers to develop innovations to significantly improve fuel economy, not only for cars sold in California but everywhere else as well.  There have been numerous other similar examples.  Carbon taxes and cap and trade systems are intended to stimulate innovation by the same mechanism.  Nobody wants to pay taxes and people and companies work to reduce emissions and so pay less tax.
  2. Sometimes innovations just happen without any apparent motivation. The “learning by doing”, “experience curve” or “learning curve” effects are based on a series of often very small changes which cumulatively have a powerful effect.  When a routine task is repeated, each cumulative doubling of repetitions typically leads to a reduction of 10-20 % in cost per unit.
  3. New Technology. The classic example of a new technology stimulating innovation in the old technology it aims to replace is the sailing ship. In the 30 years after the introduction of the steam power in the 19th century, sailing technology improved more than it had in the previous 300 years.  This is termed the “Sailing Ship effect”, which has been well documented in numerous other cases.

None of these approaches include current hot topics such as research and development spending, venture capital, crowdfunding, tax credits or other popular ideas.  This is not at all to say that these approached don’t work, but just to remind us that there are many paths to innovation.

 

Peter Josty

p.josty@thecis.ca
403-249-0191
www.thecis.ca

 


Losing jobs to machines: is it different this time?

29 May 2017 – Blog #7

Losing jobs to machines: is it different this time?

A number of recent studies have described the jobs that will be lost to automation in the next few years.  The World Economic Forum estimated that 5 million jobs will be lost to robots in the next five years, globally.  The Brookfield Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University issued a report that found that nearly 42 percent of the Canadian labour force is at a high risk of being affected by automation in the next decade or two.  They found that the top five jobs at risk of automation were: retail salesperson, administrative assistant, food counter attendant, cashiers and transport truck drivers.

This report is consistent with other long-term trends in the economy.  For example, a report in the Economist looked at employment growth in routine vs. non-routine jobs, and found that non-routine tasks grew much faster in the last 30 years.

Blog 7 -think

The impact of automation and artificial intelligence seem so far-reaching that some people suggest it will permanently reduce the number of jobs needed in the economy.  A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US found that each new robot added to the workforce meant the loss of between 3 and 5.6 jobs in the local commuting area.

Meanwhile, for each new robot added per 1,000 workers, wages in the surrounding area would fall between 0.25 and 0.5 percent.

Fear of changing technology is noting new.  A hundred years ago the Luddites destroyed weaving machinery they believed was threatening their jobs.

However, there are strong views saying that we shouldn’t worry about automation. In  a poll of Canadians Abacus Research found that 89% of Canadians agreed that technological change has been good for the world. And 76% felt it had been good for their own economic well being. They may be on to something. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor study of  entrepreneurship, Canada is the most entrepreneurial country among the advanced countries.  Entrepreneurship is basically creating new jobs by following opportunities, whatever the rest of the economy is doing.

There is heavy weight evidence to back up this view.  Joel Mokyr, an economic historian, points out : “We can’t predict what jobs will be created in the future, but it’s always been like that.  Imagine trying to tell someone a century ago that her great-grandchildren would be video-game designers or cybersecurity specialists.  These are jobs that nobody in the past would have predicted.”

Carolyn Wilkins from the Bank of Canada points out that technological change has been part of the Canadian economy since Canada was founded 150 years ago.  100 years ago one third of jobs were in agriculture, today fewer than 2% are.

So there are optimists and pessimists. Who is right? And is it different this time?

While history supports the view that new jobs will be created to replace the jobs lost, we can’t be sure of that. So what should we do, given that uncertainty? It seems to me that we need to consider three actions:

  • Expand adult re-training. It is pretty clear that many people are going to loose their jobs, and will need to find new ones.
  • Update the education system to increase the focus on preparing people for the non-routine jobs that seem likely to dominate the economy in the next 50 years.
  • Experiment with novel social programs that may be needed if the pessimists are right. A good example of this is the basic income experiments being carried out in many places round the world, including California, Finland,Italy, the Netherlands and in Ontario.

Peter Josty

p.josty@thecis.ca
403-249-0191
www.thecis.ca


Do we have too much or too little innovation?

4 May 2017 – Blog #6

Do we have too much or too little innovation?

We are surrounded by talk about innovation, in the media and in government pronouncements.  But do we really have too much, or too little of it?  Before we can answer this question, we need to establish a framework:

  1. What is our definition of innovation? There are hundreds if not thousands of definitions to choose from.  One widely used is from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), which see four different types of innovation: product innovation (e.g. a new iPhone), process innovation (e.g. lean manufacturing), marketing innovation (e.g. Amazon) and organizational innovation (e.g. outsourcing).  This definition is helpful for commercial innovations but does not capture broader aspects of innovation such as social innovation and public sector innovation including regulatory innovation.
  2. What role does innovation play in the economy? The economist William J. Baumol sees innovation as the principal weapon of competition in the free market economy, and entrepreneurship as the vehicle for bring innovations into existence. So innovation is the lifeblood of our economy.  He sees three main roles for entrepreneurship: productive entrepreneurship (a useful new product or service); non-productive entrepreneurship (for example, exploiting a monopoly or a tariff wall) and destructive entrepreneurship (criminal behaviour).
  3. Risk and uncertainty. One aspect of innovation that is not apparent from the definitions above is the inherent risk of an innovation. The whole nature of innovation is to “suck it and see”.  When a new product or process is launched, it faces a whole range of risks some of which can be predicted in advance, but many of which cannot.  So trying new things is inherently risky and uncertain.
  4. Life cycle. Another aspect not apparent from the definitions above is that innovations have a life cycle.  New things get commercialized and are welcomed as innovations;  more and more of them get sold and new competitors entre the market and eventually the “new “ thing becomes communized and is replaced in turn by something else.

 

Having set up a framework, we can see that innovations are just solutions to problems.  Quite often, the problems have not been recognized before the innovation comes along.  Henry Ford is reputed to have said that if he had asked his customers what they wanted they would have said “faster horses”.

 

So we can re-frame the question to ask what are the big problems needing solutions today?  The answer is straightforward, and jumps out from the headlines of the newspapers and TV news:

  • Inequality
  • Global warming
  • Trade protectionism
  • Oil sands emissions and costs
  • Terrorism
  • The impact of automation on jobs

This list can obviously be extended.  However, it does give a clue to where we do not yet have enough innovation.

Where do we have plenty of innovation?  Again, we can look to the headlines:

  • Self driving cars
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Drones
  • Robotics
  • Blockchain
  • Quantum computing

This list can also be extended.  So there are clearly areas where innovation is alive and very well.  This list also include some public sector innovations.  For example, the experiment in Ontario with a Basic Income, to provide a level of income for selected households for a three-year period and evaluate the impact.  This experimental approach to government policy making is a new development that is staring to emerge around the world.

To return to our initial question: do we have too much or too little innovation?  It depends where you look.  We are woefully short of innovations is some areas, while other areas are doing just fine.

Peter Josty

p.josty@thecis.ca
403-249-0191
www.thecis.ca

#innovation  #entrepreneurship  #THECIS


Entrepreneurship at the University of Calgary

24 April 2017 – Blog #5

Entrepreneurship at the University of Calgary

C_Langford;C._Saunders

C. Langford                        C. Saunders

The Centre for Innovation Studies (THECIS) has just completed a report on entrepreneurship at the University of Calgary using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor methodology. This is the first time the GEM methodology has been used at a university. The report shows very high levels of entrepreneurship and also shows that the startups have significant competitive advantages as measured by their use of up to date technology and the number of competitors they have. The full report is available here.

Peter Josty

www.thecis.ca

403-249-0191
p.josty@thecis.ca


What exactly is a culture of Innovation?

1 March 2017 – Blog #4

What exactly is a culture of Innovation?

The expression “culture of innovation”  is a perennial part of most innovation strategies. But why is it so important?  And what exactly does it mean?

Why is it important?

Mark Pagel in his book “Wired for Culture”  says that for many people one of the most distinctive features of life in human societies is the sense of belonging to a particular cultural group.  He makes a strong case that culture exercises a form of mind control over us.  We willingly accept this mind control – probably without knowing it – in return for the protection and prosperity our cultures provide. Just think of a hockey game or rock concert.

Culture has had a profound effect on the history of innovation.  Joel Mokyr – a historian – in his book “The Culture of Growth” shows how the culture of Europeans changed radically from 1500 to 1700.  In 1500 the culture was very intolerant one where dissent) was harshly criticized, and punished (think the Spanish Inquisition); by 1700 scientific investigation and new scientific theories were everywhere (think Newton) and widely accepted and the stage was set for the Industrial Revolution a few decades later.  If the culture hadn’t changed the Industrial Revolution couldn’t have happened and our world would be vastly different today.

Mokyr shows that the idea of progress is a central aspect of culture, and in particular how each generation sees itself compared with their ancestors – whether we are better or worse than they were.  For almost two thousand years the accepted wisdom in Europe was that the ancient Greek philosophers  (in particular Aristotle) had created a perfect understanding of the world, and that to better understand the world one only had to study the ancient texts.  That is the attitude that gradually eroded from 1500 to 1700.  One key development that caused this change was the voyages of discovery (e.g. Columbus, in 1492) which discovered things the ancients knew nothing about and discredited their claims to universal knowledge.

So clearly, culture is a critical factor to consider in innovation strategy.  If the culture isn’t right, new ideas are stifled.  However, society has limits to what it will accept, often driven by cultural values.  For example, GMOs, which are often opposed despite being proven safe.  So there are culturally imposed limits to what innovations we are prepared to accept, and this is an important aspect of innovation policy.

What does it mean?

Robert Boyd and   Peter Richerson (profs at the University of California) developed this widely accepted definition of culture:  “ Culture is a set of beliefs, values and preferences, capable of affecting behaviour, that are socially (not genetically) transmitted and that are shared by some subset of society.”  This implies that there is not just one culture in Canada, but a multitude of different cultures.  And they all have different attitudes towards innovation.  Just think of differences between provinces, between different age groups and between different companies.

Culture is constantly changing and evolving, although many aspects of culture change very slowly.  Just think how our attitudes towards things like smoking and using seat belts have changed in the last couple of decades. There are also vast differences between countries as well.  In the World Values Survey Canada has strong self-expression values similar to Australia, New Zealand, Britain and Iceland, very different from countries such as Russia and Belarus.

Conclusion

So what exactly is a culture of innovation?  It’s complicated.  It is obviously a vitally important factor that deserves serious attention in any innovation policy.  The writers of innovation strategies probably have in mind a general acceptance of progress and openness to new ideas, a willingness to collaborate and perhaps a willingness to try new things, and to take initiatives.  But if they mean that, it would be better to say that, rather than obscure it with a very loaded term like “culture of innovation.”

 

Peter Josty
403-249-0191
p.josty@thecis.ca


How will Canada grow in the next 50 years?

15 February 2017 – Blog #3

How will Canada grow in the next 50 years?   

Winston Churchill is reputed to have said “The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”  Let’s test that idea by looking at innovation and economic growth.
Robert Gordon, an economist at Northwestern University wrote “The Rise and Fall of American Growth”, which looked at economic growth and innovation over the last  couple of hundred years and included the diagram below for changes in productivity:

From Gordon’s point of view, you can think of the past 150 years unfolding as a series of industrial revolutions.  The first one – based on waterpower, the steam engine and its offshoots – the railways, steamships, and the shift to iron and steel – resulted from inventions made in the period from 1770 to 1820.  This was a big enough revolution to drive economic growth through most of the nineteenth century.

The second industrial revolution resulted from inventions in electricity and the internal combustion engine in the late nineteenth century. This included automobiles, highway construction, and television, and electrification of factories, among many others.  This drove economic growth to around 1970.  The third industrial revolution was associated with information and communications technology and started in the 1960s. This had a profound effect but in a much narrower part of the economy.  That explains the drop off in productivity after 1970.

Through all of this change, however, real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Canada just continued growing at a steady 2% a year, on average.  This works out to a doubling every 35 years.  The graph below from the World Bank shows this from 1961.

So what might the future hold?

If you look at the fundamentals, we have a number of radical technologies at an early stage of development.  Examples are robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering.  These would appear well positioned to drive growth in the next few decades. Offsetting this, however, we have an aging population, but increasing longevity and increasing education.

If you ask the experts, there are several recent reports:

  • PricewaterhouseCoopers, in “The World in 2050” projects that Canada will grow its real (inflation adjusted) GDP per capita at roughly 1.6% annually, on average, to 2050.
  • The OECD in an outlook to 2060 projects that Canada’s GDP per capita between 2011 and 2060 will grow at 1.6% on average (at US PPP).
  • The Conference Board of Canada says that over the long term, potential output will be limited to annual growth below 2 per cent as the aging of the population puts downward pressure on labour force growth.

If you ask me?  I would place a hefty bet that for the next few decades will be in the 1½ – 2% ballpark on average.  Despite what the gloomsayers think, that’s not bad.  It means a doubling of wealth every 35 years or so.  So a doubling every generation, just like the last 50 years.

Peter Josty
403-249-0191
p.josty@thecis.ca


THECIS Board – Bio’s January – 2017

     Ronald Dyck  (Chair)

Ronald J. Dyck, PhD has over 37 years of executive and senior management experience in the public, academic and not-for-profit sectors, Ron has provided leadership to governments, academia, agencies, communities and companies in accelerating the identification, development, implementation and evaluation/reviews of needs-based, sustainable solutions through realizing and applying the benefits of science, technology and innovation.

Peter Josty photo low resolution     Peter Josty 

Peter Josty, PhD has been Executive Director of THECIS since 2001. THECIS is a not for profit research company that specializes in innovation research.

Before this he had a diversified career in the chemical industry in Canada, holding positions as research chemist, market development specialist, technical manager, new products application manager, business development manager and head of strategy and planning. In these roles he was a practitioner of innovation and led numerous new product introductions to North American markets.

Peter has a PhD in chemistry from the University of London and an MBA from IMI [now IMD] in Geneva Switzerland.

 

kratz_martin 2-150-1     Martin Kratz

Martin Kratz, QC, leads the intellectual property and ecommerce practice for the national business law firm, Bennett Jones LLP.   His practice is focused on intellectual property and technology law, including substantive IP protection and freedom to operate and clearance opinions, data protection and privacy matters, IP and IT transactions, licensing, commercialization, procurement, strategy, strategic alliances, acquisition and technology transfers.  His practice includes the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, telecommunications, cloud computing, ecommerce, entertainment and energy industries.

 

CHLangford3 11 06     Cooper Langford

Cooper H Langford (Ph.D., FRSC, FAAAS) was a founding THECIS fellow and initial interim chair of the board,. He is a chemist and research administrator. He has served as Vice President (Research) at the University of Calgary, and Assoc. Vice-rector (Research) at Concordia. His government experience includes a term as Director of Physical and Mathematical Sciences with responsibility for big science at NSERC. He chaired the Nuclear and Particle Physics Advisory Panel and served as a representative to the OECD Mega science Forum for Industry Canada.  He is an author of four books and over 300 research communications in inorganic chemistry, environmental chemistry, innovation studies, and knowledge exchange between universities and their communities.

 

L Bowd     Les Bowd

Les was one of the original founding members of THECIS. His professional career encompassed telecommunications, energy, agri-business, government and academia. Senior executive positions in the cooperative, private and public sectors provided Les diverse domestic, North American and International experience. Most notably he served as Assistant Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food in the Saskatchewan Government and Chief Strategic Officer of Cominco Fertilizers / Agrium. Recognizing the “obsolescence” of his MBA from Ivey, he studied for a Doctor of Business Administration from Henley Management College, U. K. He maintains an active role in developing economic development strategy and providing academic coaching, both domestically and internationally.

 

     Richard Hawkins

Richard is a political economist, at present  is a professor in the science, technology and society program at the University of Calgary. He is also senior fellow at THECIS and fellow of the Institute for Science Society and Policy (University of Ottawa).  He has authored over 100 scientific publications and reports on science, technology and industry policy.  He also has extensive international experience as a policy consultant and advisor. Major clients have included the European Commission, the OECD, the World Bank, Industry Canada, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), The Standards Council of Canada, the UK Department of Trade and Industry, the UK Office of Science and Technology, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, the International Labor Organization, the Italian Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (AGCOM), the London Metropolitan Police Service, the Telecommunication Managers Association (UK) and the British Standards Institution.

He holds BA and MA degrees from Simon Fraser University (Canada), and a DPhil from the University of Sussex (UK).

 

     Mark Fedorak

Mark Fedorak P.Eng, PMP has over 20 years of technical, business, and project management expertise and his current primary position is as CEO of Xanantec Technologies Inc. an Edmonton based Electrical Engineering consulting firm.  Mark has worked on over 300 projects, and has been in the role of CEO, CTO, or Chief Engineer in a number of different medical and high tech startups.  Mark has served on a number of not for profit boards and provides THECIS with an SME perspective.

 

Bartlett, Walter, 2015     Blake Bartlett

Blake  is a CPA (Charted Professional Accountant) and MBA (Master of Business Administration).  He has 20 years of public sector experience including financial leadership roles in the areas of health, advanced education, innovation and technology.  He is currently the Director of Forecasting and Financial Analytics for Alberta Health Services.

 

     Ray Bassett

Ray Bassett  B.Comm  MBA.   Retired after 37 years of public service with the Governments of Canada and Alberta.  Ray has a wide range of executive management and policy experience covering transportation, economic development & trade, agriculture & food, innovation & science, and advanced education.  At the end of his career he was a member of team supporting the Premier’s Council for Economic Strategy.

 

M_Cote_Ball_bio     Martha Cote’ Ball

Martha has been the Executive Secretary of THECIS since its beginning in 2001.  During this time, she also worked for TWM, and was the Administrator for Strategic Leadership Forum – Calgary Chapter for 10 years.  She has held many positions in different organizations and companies over the years.  A graduate of Mount Royal University, she has a diverse background in leadership, leisure leadership and coaching, event co-ordination and planning, healthcare, and pastoral care.